Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Even after the great mans bicentenary year, he is still hit by the same prejudices and criticisms that have pervaded him both his whole life, and since his death.

Because of this, I have decided to make a thread dedicated to him. (Obviously this has been done with the e-cital, but I want to make a broader sort of thread). This is a thread for discussing Liszt, posting his music, and basically celebrating him. The thread is for everyone, but aimed at people who are particularly enthusiastic about the man and his music.

I'll start the thread by posting some rare-ish works of his that I have been listening to a fair bit lately...

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

Actually, isn't his much earlier "Au bord d'une source" just as impressionistic? but yes, I think Liszt was first in this regard.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

Actually, isn't his much earlier "Au bord d'une source" just as impressionistic? but yes, I think Liszt was first in this regard.

Sophia

Not as much, but still, yes. I've never heard this particular recording before. It is much slower than the recording I have on CD, but it is very charming, nonetheless.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

Actually, isn't his much earlier "Au bord d'une source" just as impressionistic? but yes, I think Liszt was first in this regard.

Sophia

Well, yes and no. I always thought of Au bord as more of a Romantic nature study, or otherwise Schumann's Waldscenen would handily predate it. There's no doubt that somewhere in there the seed was planted, but Jeux d'eaux I think is more along the lines of the subject matter that Debussy and Ravel used. He becomes less of a cantor and more of a painter.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

I never got it either. He did write a lot of stuff merely to show off his unsurpassed technical equipment (like the opera fantasies), but even most of them are void of empty virtuosity, which he would be excused for anyway seeing as that's more or less what he wrote them for. Some of these works are really terrific too, like the inspired Norma fantasy. People always say there is a good deal of trash in his oeuvre, but there is actually very little void of interest, even when he was writing for show off purposes (which is not really a bad thing in the end, seeing as he wrote so much music for musical purposes). Like all composers, he wrote masterpieces, good pieces, and average-'bad' pieces. I do think that a lot of Liszt can be an acquired taste though, as it is often in his best stuff a unique style of writing, and very virtuosic which can put people, especially those with a prejudiced mind, off despite how good the music is.

Originally Posted By: didyougethathing

I consider this one of his masterworks:

What a journey!

Yes! I agree, absolutely a masterwork. Always one of my very favourites! Thankyou!

Originally Posted By: Dachshund

I always thought this piece was beautiful.

It's bummer people don't play it very often compared to the other consolations.

-Will

Agreed. All of the consolations are very beautiful pieces, but 3 (and to a lesser extent, 2) seems to be the only one that's played. It's a shame, because they are all little gems.

Originally Posted By: didyougethathing

I also love Totentanz (the version with orchestra)! Sure, there's some flash, but there are great moments in there.

The part from 4:48-4:58 in the 2nd part just takes my breath away. So "movie score" for its time!

Yes I love the Totentanz too! Terrific piece. My favourite recording is from Zimerman, who to me gets it pretty much perfect. (In fact Zimerman in both Liszt's concerti and the Totentanz is pretty much perfect IMO, transforming these oft-critisized works into the masterpieces they deserve to be).

Here he is in the Totentanz:

Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones

Originally Posted By: sophial

Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones

Originally Posted By: Psychic Ravel

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

Actually, isn't his much earlier "Au bord d'une source" just as impressionistic? but yes, I think Liszt was first in this regard.

Sophia

Well, yes and no. I always thought of Au bord as more of a Romantic nature study, or otherwise Schumann's Waldscenen would handily predate it. There's no doubt that somewhere in there the seed was planted, but Jeux d'eaux I think is more along the lines of the subject matter that Debussy and Ravel used. He becomes less of a cantor and more of a painter.

The beauty of Beethoven can be so overwhelming that my bones ache and I forget to breath. Chopin seems to willfully destroy my emotions leaving behind a blubbering mess. But only Liszt's compositions are banned from my work hours as nothing else becomes possible when captured in his enchantment.

Liszt alone steals my soul and returns it transformed for the better.

_________________________

Piano is hard work from beginning to forever. Accept this as truth or risk a quick exit with tail between legs.

I've been listening to the Faust Symphony a lot lately...Love love love this work! One of my favourite symphonies by anyone...It's better in context with all the transformations and all that, but this movement takes my breath away every time...It has to be one of the greatest movements in any symphony IMO.

Conducted by Bernstein who called the symphony 'Liszt's only authentic masterpiece.' Obviously a load of rubbish when there is the Sonata, the Christus Oratorio, Benediction, and more, but still that's high praise of this work by a great conductor.

I'm an admirer of Liszt, the man and the music, I dare to say that I know how important he has been, historically, musically, pianistically, but, BUT: he tends to be a vehicle for some pianists to show off their own musical shallowness in such a way that it has an effect, unfortunately, on his reputation. Liszt at his best deserves pianists at their best, as do Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann and all the others.

I like the first Liebestraum from the set of three Liebestraums more than the second and third.

I agree with you! In fact I like the first AND second better than the third, and the first is my favourite. However I do think this is simply because i've heard the third a minimum of a million times rather than the other two being better - I do think the third is the more attractive work despite how numb i've become to it. But all three are beautiful.

Originally Posted By: emmov

I've always had a soft spot for Sonetto 104 del Petrarca...

Me too...I think this extended miniature contains the essence of Romanticism. It is one of my favourite piano works by anyone.

I'm always confused by people who think that Liszt's music is somehow just flashy, ostentatious show-off pieces that forsake any kind of depth. I always find delicate, passionate harmonies in Liszt's pieces, which are buttressed by his imaginative, visceral pianistic effects.

I was just reading a new biography of Ravel (my favorite piano composer) and apparently his library included a whole ton of Liszt, and you can tell by Ravel's piano music that he encountered a fair amount of Liszt.

Ravel owes a lot to Liszt's late works, especially Jeux d'eaux de la Villa d'Este, which to me is the first Impressionistic piano piece.

Actually, isn't his much earlier "Au bord d'une source" just as impressionistic? but yes, I think Liszt was first in this regard.

Sophia

Well, yes and no. I always thought of Au bord as more of a Romantic nature study, or otherwise Schumann's Waldscenen would handily predate it. There's no doubt that somewhere in there the seed was planted, but Jeux d'eaux I think is more along the lines of the subject matter that Debussy and Ravel used. He becomes less of a cantor and more of a painter.

I just realised, while I agree with you that Au bord d'une source is more a nature study, I disagree with Waldszenen predating it. Waldszenen was written in 1848 I believe, while Au bord d'une source was written in it's first form (in the Album D'un Voyageur suite) in around 1836, and then revised in the 50's into the version we know and love today.

While I don't agree with you, i've said similar things many times. I personally believe that Liszt's 2nd is every bit as good as Chopin's masterful 4th Ballade (which I believe to be Chopin's greatest work, and my favourite work by him), and I like Liszt's better. I'm not, however, going to say that it is better

So as OP, i'm more or less on your side. I will protect you from being killed

It took me forever to find a good recording of this work - all the recordings on youtube just didn't do it for me...until I found this one by Stephen Hough, who pulls the work off pretty much perfectly IMO.

While I don't agree with you, i've said similar things many times. I personally believe that Liszt's 2nd is every bit as good as Chopin's masterful 4th Ballade (which I believe to be Chopin's greatest work, and my favourite work by him), and I like Liszt's better. I'm not, however, going to say that it is better

So as OP, i'm more or less on your side. I will protect you from being killed

It took me forever to find a good recording of this work - all the recordings on youtube just didn't do it for me...until I found this one by Stephen Hough, who pulls the work off pretty much perfectly IMO.

A lot of folks seemed to like my interpretation of it, I recorded the Second Ballade for the Liszt e-cital. I don't think it is fair to compare it to the Chopin ballades. They're in different, equally distant and fantastic solar systems. The Liszt just gives the impression of being endlessly immense, generous and vivid, and the Chopin is so inward and intimate. There's no way to meaningfully compare them.

While I don't agree with you, i've said similar things many times. I personally believe that Liszt's 2nd is every bit as good as Chopin's masterful 4th Ballade (which I believe to be Chopin's greatest work, and my favourite work by him), and I like Liszt's better. I'm not, however, going to say that it is better

So as OP, i'm more or less on your side. I will protect you from being killed

It took me forever to find a good recording of this work - all the recordings on youtube just didn't do it for me...until I found this one by Stephen Hough, who pulls the work off pretty much perfectly IMO.

A lot of folks seemed to like my interpretation of it, I recorded the Second Ballade for the Liszt e-cital. I don't think it is fair to compare it to the Chopin ballades. They're in different, equally distant and fantastic solar systems. The Liszt just gives the impression of being endlessly immense, generous and vivid, and the Chopin is so inward and intimate. There's no way to meaningfully compare them.

Well yes. I do agree with you.

On another note, i've been listening to his 1st Ballade lately as well. It is not in the same world of quality and is a much more light-hearted work, but I still love this piece. Anyone else for his first Ballade? Perhaps not first-rate Liszt, but some parts are absolutely magical.